Why is the communication token not placed automatically?

[sergut]

For the purposes of communication, one player can select a card to communicate to others. One click is enough and the card is shown to everybody.

Then the player is asked to place the token and I wonder: why? why is this not done automatically?

The rules say (emphasis mine):

Code: Select all

The chosen card must be **either**: 
The lowest card you hold in a particular suit (token placed at bottom of card). 
The only card you hold in a particular suit (token placed in middle of card). 
The highest card you hold in a particular suit (token placed at top of card).

The three options are mutually exclusive, so the game already knows where the token should be. Why ask the player to do it? What is the purpose of this?

On a related note, why does the game give the option to place the token "up" or "bottom" when the card is the only card in the hand? Although the only card is technically also the highest and the lowest card, the way the rules are written it seems clear that the token can only go "in middle of card". Why give the option and allow players to misclick?

I have looked for an answer in this forum (searching for "communication" and "token") and I have not found anything.

Thank you!

[Tisaac]

This is a bug

[Joseph2302]

If it is your only card, then by definition it is your lowest card and your highest card in that colour. Therefore, all 3 placements are technically legal, just that only is the sensible one to use

[Tisaac]

If it is your only card, then by definition it is your lowest card and your highest card in that colour. Therefore, all 3 placements are technically legal, just that only is the sensible one to use

That's not true, the rulebook does not talk about letting you choose the position in this case.
This communication process is bugged in several ways and the new version solve many issues

[MoiMagnus]

If it is your only card, then by definition it is your lowest card and your highest card in that colour. Therefore, all 3 placements are technically legal, just that only is the sensible one to use

That's not true, the rulebook does not talk about letting you choose the position in this case.

Opinion seems to diverge on this. There was a similar discussion on BGG (at the middle of another topic in https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/251816 ... l-nonverba) that argued that it was allowed by the rules, but that you probably shouldn't do so.

So I'd definitely not count this as a bug until it is clarified by the designers (which might have happened, feel free to link an answer if you found one). It is a "debatable interpretation of the rules", but it is probably like that on purpose.

[ufm]

So I'd definitely not count this as a bug until it is clarified by the designers (which might have happened, feel free to link an answer if you found one). It is a "debatable interpretation of the rules", but it is probably like that on purpose.

The designer has never officially allowed it yet.
Then let us wield Occam's Razor. There is absolutely no reason to allow this.
After all, the whole 'debate' looks like rules lawyering.

[MoiMagnus]

So I'd definitely not count this as a bug until it is clarified by the designers (which might have happened, feel free to link an answer if you found one). It is a "debatable interpretation of the rules", but it is probably like that on purpose.

The designer has never officially allowed it yet.
Then let us wield Occam's Razor. There is absolutely no reason to allow this.
After all, the whole 'debate' looks like rules lawyering.

You're very partial in your use of the Occam's Razor. It relies on peoples agreeing what is the "minimal amount of rules", which is the point of contention here.

The Crew, as a fully cooperative game with limited communication (like Hanabi), will attract populations of players that love to toy around with what communications are acceptable and what communications are not, pushing the boundaries and trying to encode very complex informations into the minimal things that are allowed within the rules. It can be seen as rule lawyering, but this term is usually used for bad-faith interpretation of the rules, while I'm convinced the BGA devs here were honestly convinced that this was how the rules worked, as this implementation is harder likely to code than the more restricted one.

In fact, I've found the already existing bug reports at the subjects: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=23714 and https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=22931, where the BGA dev says explicitly "If it is your only card, you can place your token wherever you want. Nothing prevents you in the rules to say it is your highest card, since it is."
While multiple players argued against, the BGA dev did not gave further answers to argue their point and just noted it as "not a bug".

[ufm]

You're very partial in your use of the Occam's Razor. It relies on peoples agreeing what is the "minimal amount of rules", which is the point of contention here.

The Crew, as a fully cooperative game with limited communication (like Hanabi), will attract populations of players that love to toy around with what communications are acceptable and what communications are not, pushing the boundaries and trying to encode very complex informations into the minimal things that are allowed within the rules. It can be seen as rule lawyering, but this term is usually used for bad-faith interpretation of the rules, while I'm convinced the BGA devs here were honestly convinced that this was how the rules worked, as this implementation is harder likely to code than the more restricted one.

Allowing this behavior causes much more confusion than attraction. Look at all those comments from the posts you linked.
Plus, I've seen some (fortunately few) players trolling with this deliberately.

In fact, I've found the already existing bug reports at the subjects: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=23714 and https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=22931, where the BGA dev says explicitly "If it is your only card, you can place your token wherever you want. Nothing prevents you in the rules to say it is your highest card, since it is."
While multiple players argued against, the BGA dev did not gave further answers to argue their point and just noted it as "not a bug".

Of course developers might misinterpret the rules. Developer decisions are not infallible.
BGA's current The Crew implementation is obviously rushed due to 2020 Spiel, so bugs and inconveniences are in everywhere.
I found rule misinterpretations in BGA Tokaido and Targi too. The former was fixed, but the latter still exists.

Also, BGA devs might not share a common viewpoint.
Previous developer has left the building already, so the initiative goes on the current dev, maybe?
Then-developer never mentioned whether the answer is from the designer directly or not.
Some developers communicate with publisher/designer while resolving rules conflict, but it seems those replies are not the case.

[Phoxtrot]

Saying that a 1 is your highest card rather than sole card might induce people into assuming that you are making an extra statement. As in I have or do not have a trump. This would depend on the dynamic of the group.

I see no reason to forbid it.

[ufm]

Saying that a 1 is your highest card rather than sole card might induce people into assuming that you are making an extra statement. As in I have or do not have a trump. This would depend on the dynamic of the group.

I see no reason to forbid it.

How about 2~9? Unlike Hanabi conventions it is not always applicable but rather a rare occasion.
And actually '1 is my only card' is just enough to indicate a rocket.
Don't have one, then run a long suit instead. No need to adopt that after all.